New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on a high-profile plea filed by Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. The plea challenges the validity of an inquiry committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption charges against him. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, presented strong arguments claiming the entire process is illegal.
The case has grabbed national attention due to the serious nature of the allegations, which involve the discovery of burnt currency notes at the judge’s residence in 2025.
What is the Case About?
The controversy began in March 2025, when a large amount of burnt cash was reportedly found at the official Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma. Following this, an in-house inquiry found him guilty of misconduct. This led to impeachment motions being moved in both Houses of Parliament.
However, the situation became legally complex when the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the motion on August 11, 2025. Despite this rejection, the Lok Sabha Speaker went ahead and constituted a three-member inquiry committee the very next day. Justice Varma has challenged this specific action in the Supreme Court.
Mukul Rohatgi’s Key Arguments
Appearing for Justice Varma, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to form a committee was “non-est” (does not exist in law). His main points were:
- Joint Process Required: Rohatgi stated that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, if motions are moved in both Houses on the same day, a committee can only be formed if both Houses admit the motion.
- Rejection Bar: Since the Rajya Sabha had already rejected the motion, Rohatgi argued that the Lok Sabha could not unilaterally proceed with forming a panel. He called the process a “blatant infraction” of the law designed to protect judges.
- Procedural Violation: He emphasized that the law must be strictly followed when it comes to removing a constitutional authority like a High Court Judge.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, listened to arguments from both sides.
- The Bench orally observed that there appeared to be “some infirmity” (legal flaw) in how the committee was constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
- However, the Court also asked whether a procedural error is enough to stop a probe into such serious allegations.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Parliament, argued that no “prejudice” was caused to the judge and that the probe should continue to ensure accountability.
Why This Matters
This case is significant because it tests the balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. If the Supreme Court accepts Mukul Rohatgi’s arguments, the inquiry committee could be scrapped, giving temporary relief to Justice Varma. If the Court rejects the plea, the impeachment process will move forward, potentially leading to the judge’s removal.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has reserved its order, meaning the final decision will be announced soon. The Court also refused to grant extra time to Justice Varma to reply to the inquiry panel, signaling that the judiciary wants a swift resolution to this serious matter.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: Who is Mukul Rohatgi representing in this case?
Mukul Rohatgi is representing Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court who is facing an impeachment inquiry.
Q2: What are the allegations against Justice Varma?
The allegations relate to the discovery of a large sum of burnt currency notes at his official residence in Delhi in March 2025.
Q3: Why is Mukul Rohatgi calling the inquiry illegal?
Rohatgi argues that since the Rajya Sabha rejected the removal motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker did not have the legal power to set up an inquiry committee alone.
Q4: Has the Supreme Court given a final verdict?
No, the Supreme Court has “reserved” its verdict, which means they have heard the arguments and will announce the decision on a later date.
Q5: What is the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
It is a law that lays down the detailed procedure for the investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a judge before they can be removed from office.